<mprorock> @markus - you are good to transfer that repo
<mprorock> /me glares at orie and shawn
<tallted> Is it too late, or may I suggest changing from "W3C Verifiable Conditions" to "W3C Conditional Verifiability", to avoid (further) overloading "VC" (he asked, hoping "CV" is less overloaded, or at least used by a different community)
<orie> bottom example is wrong....Ed25519Siganture2018 uses detached JWS... thats an attached jws in the example.
<orie> thats a link to stack overflow... not an RFC for multisignature JWS.
<orie> AFAIK, there is no RFC for multiple signature JWS.
<orie> but exciting idea!
<markus_sabadello> JWS supports multiple signatures. Just not in compact serialization, but thefe are other serializations if JWS.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah I'm I'm hoping it's not too late to suggest changing that name from verifiable conditions to conditional verifiability or something like that DC's with v seeds is is not going to work out well. ✪
<mprorock> @or13 rfc7515 "The JWS JSON Serialization represents JWSs as JSON objects and enables multiple signatures and/or MACs to be applied to the same content. Both share the same cryptographic underpinnings."
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I suggested conditional verifiability. ✪
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Obviously just off the top of my head. ✪
<orie> Cool to see that no changes are needed to DID Core.
<orie> A spec for data integrity or vc-jwt would be needed for VC Data Model v2 though... I think.
Tomislav_Markovski: Yes I had a question I'm wondering how does the typo the verification map to the proof that's required in the condition so one key can be used to produce different signature types different proofs is there a way to express which specific is required as part of it. ✪
<orie> Yep... the `type` of the nested verificationMethod
Tomislav_Markovski: Yes it does so for specifically for example if I were to have a Json web key in this which I can use to produce a BLS signature or BLS group signature or maybe a BBS signature does that mean that I would have to Define three specific sweets in order to express that. ✪
Tomislav_Markovski: Right yeah sorry I just when I when I understand I'm communicating that the question correctly a single key can be used for three different proof types How would how would that be expressed. ✪
Tomislav_Markovski: Right so you're seeing that the GW that's what you described is a feature of the JW k key which can express what the underlying signature schemes should be used with it. ✪
<marty_reed> V2 is not candidate final public as of yet
<marty_reed> for CLR
<orie> sbts -- > NT-NFTs
<nate_otto_(he/him)> I don't think 1EdTech has quite yet published a Comprehensive Learner Record 2.0 (CLR) document in parallel to the OB 3.0 work yet (it's on a slightly different less-public track, but it will be published as a "candidate final public" soon after a 1EdTech internal review phase that is taking a few weeks longer than originally hoped.
Harrison_Tang: Yes so next week we invited Nick Lambert the CEO of talk to talk about the doc search and the web 3id they are going to demo the sign with a theory and functionalities and we are preparing a couple questions for him to answer so that you guys have any questions please come prepare and. ✪
Harrison_Tang: a week after that we're going to. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Tom's from satp to kind of talk about their work there and then after that we're going to have someone from ceramic to talk about ceramic Network and I'm going to we're actually kind of clean up the w3c calendars let me put it in the chat here and then we're going to put these schedule events in the vents so that when people have. ✪